In the job history overview I see many jobs with ‘full’ appended while the data transferred doesn’t reflect a full backup at all. According to support this is expected behavior. When a Sharepoint site or mailbox is backed up that wasn’t present previously, the job is being marked as a full backup. I find this very odd, this isn’t the normal use of the incremental or full terminology in backup applications.
Hi Polina,
what is the purpose of that change of behaviour? I was confused to see every day new Full backups, too... After theupgrade from v71 to v85 the support told me that the first backup will always be a full... yes, of course I knew that... But now I see full backups every day... In my opinion it doesn't make sense...
Kind regards...
Andreas
Exactly my point, why append full or incremental at all if the terminology now is being used for other purposes. Why should we know a new object is being backed up (hence it will append ‘full’) if we, for example, can’t see which object(s) it was/were that triggered the ‘full’ label. The use of ‘full’ or ‘incremental’ this way doesn’t have any benefit and only causes confusion for us who are working with backup applications everyday.
This change was required to support backup on proxy pools and implement prioritization of objects processing.
New objects that triggered full are logged as follows:
[Info] New orchestration object added (object ID: {id}, priority: Low, ...)
